Toward a Theory of “Place Networks”

Two very different examples of place networks, not far from each other in London. Top photo, Seven Dials, offering a very complex, rich network, serving human users at a very high level of quality. Lower photo, an impoverished network, serving machines and mechanical needs. Incredibly, the lower environment was made by well-meaning architects, believing it was a sophisticated act of “modern” placemaking. This is a symptom of a deep pathology in modern practice, and in the defective models of placemaking that continue to be used.

It’s a remarkable characteristic of the human environment that many structures and processes are operating and interacting simultaneously across a range of scales – some with pronounced effects, some with subtle ones. This complex symphony in turn shapes the interactions, behaviors and experiences of human beings. A number of well-developed theoretical systems have been able to model important aspects of this complex structural process: Graph Theory, Space Syntax, Pattern Languages, Multiple Centrality Assessment, and others. Other less well-developed frameworks suggest additional important aspects, including certain schools of environmental psychology, the young field of biophilia, and the “organized complexity” (and related insights) of theorist Jane Jacobs.

But we believe the theoretical picture presented by these different systems is incomplete and spotty, and there is no clear, unified, normative guidance presented to practitioners. This lacuna is particularly important in light of the challenges of sustainability and resilience, and the egregious failure of modern practices to respond in what can be regarded as plausibly adequate to these challenges. (Indeed, the architecture profession itself seems under the dominance of a kind of artistic “magical thinking,” focused upon collections of aestheticized objects, adhered to tenuous theories of sustainability.)

As Kevin Lynch argued, we need a “theory of good city form,” if for no other reason than to make clear our assumptions and values. This line of thinking suggests that there is a need to unify these somewhat disparate and incomplete theoretical models, into a kind of “unified theory of spatial structure.” Such a model would give an over-arching explanation of these structural relationships across scales, and moreover, offer a general explanation of their dynamics of formation and human interaction. This in turn could serve as a badly needed guide to best practice in design, conceived now as a broader project that re-engages its humane responsibilities.

We believe the elements of such a “unified theory” do exist, provided by the partial theoretical systems mentioned above — but that they need to be assembled into a more integrated picture. Such a picture – which we term “Place Network Theory” for reasons we will explain below – might have the following key elements:

1. Ability to generally describe the linked and fine-grained structure of urbanism across scales, from regional to neighborhood to street to building to small details and textures.

2. Ability to account for the phenomenological aspects of place, as structural and geometric phenomena.

3. Ability to explain how such structures arise through the interactions of human beings with their environments, as processes evolving through time.

4. Ability to explain the crucial syntax of public to private space, its capacity for modulation by users, and its role in modulating levels of interaction.

5. Ability to account for the experiences of layering and sequence, and their importance.

6. Ability to account for biophilic phenomena, such as the psychological benefits of plants, water, animals, and other biological geometries.

7. Ability to account for the desirable and “livable” qualities of place.

8. Ability to account for the capacity of urban spatial networks to facilitate economic interactions, following power laws and other related network phenomena.

10. Ability to analyze failing
spaces, and create models of the failures with diagnostic value.
(Especially the ubiquitous failures of modern environments.)

Such a theoretical picture may seem a
very tall order, but as suggested, is already outlined by the
insights already developed. It is above all a network model,
mapping the connections between spaces within the built environments
as room-like entities, with clear centers, edges and modulated
boundaries. (Christopher Alexander has developed a very similar
picture with his theory of “centers,” which, combined with
patterns, do provide the strong outlines of such a Place Network
Theory.)

As we see it, this “place network theory,” then,
would combine the following elements:

1. An understanding of the working units of space as room-like structures or “places” with membrane-like boundaries affording connections to one another (though they may be very small, or conversely, very large).

2. An understanding of the network connections of these places (hence “place networks”), consisting of hierarchical aspects (lower units are constituents of upper units) as well as overlapping aspects.

3. An understanding of the processes of their forming and transforming, and how certain rule-based actions govern these.

4. An understanding of the tendency of “attractors” or “patterns” to form (relatively stable configurations that are repeated as solutions or resolutions to problems or conflicts).

5. An understanding of the evolutionary system that is generated by this pattern-forming process, and its ability to build greater problem-solving capacity over time, and greater complexity and beauty (and these are related, as they are in biological systems).

We spoke of the need for “normative guidance.” What guidance would such a theoretical picture offer? We suggest the following:

1. Urban structures (buildings, streets, landscapes etc.) must provide for users to make ready adaptations across a range of scales, so as to control their own degrees of interaction. (Simple examples are doors, windows, curtains, gates, etc – but more permanent alterations must be possible too). This is the basis of urban self-organization, a critical capacity for ecological resilience.

2. Related to this, patterns of spatial activity must provide an essential framework of space, with a gradient from public to private, and a modulated, self-organizing system of connections across this gradient.

3. Following this, urban structures need to be easily repairable and adaptable to new uses, with the involvement of local participants in the economy, and local (renewable) resources.

4. Related to this, urban structures must be seen as tools for the generation of local and sustainable economic activity, and the relation of economic vitality to sustainability must be codified and reinforced within a range of economic and planning tools.

5. Related to this, the repositories of previously evolved urban structures, and also patterns of natural structure with important capacities for human beings (patterns, prototypes, design motifs, etc) are essential sources of genetic material.

6. Therefore, patterns of spatial activity must be conserved for later learning and re-adaptation. Precedent must not be rejected in the name of artistic novelty. This is at present a serious, even catastrophic failing of modern design instruction.

Such a unified theory is therefore urgently needed, in view of the ongoing failures of far too much work in the environmental planning, design and building professions today. As the saying goes, “Rome burns.”

Top, a diagram of a place network on a fairly typical self-organizing London street. Notice all the places that people can inhabit, under very complex rules of ownership and permission. Notice also the complex modulations of connections — of movement, sight, sound, smell, sound and smell but not sight (bushes), sight but not sound or smell (glass) etc. Middle, “place networks” as a series of rooms. Lower, an example of a complex place network on NW 23rd Avenue, in Portland, Oregon — an evolutionary transformation of an old residential street into a thriving mixed-use retail environment.

Working draft outline, May 8 2012

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

2 comments on “Toward a Theory of “Place Networks””

John Bliss

May 18, 2012

I am enthralled by these re-conceptualizations: "place networks" as a source of settlement "resilience"; "series-of-rooms" as biophilic "objects-of-direct-experience"; preservation as "conserving essential sources of genetic material". They boldly and freshly mirror a civilizational problem.We need a reformed "real estate development" practice to implement these powerful core ideas. That will include, for example: analyzing economic feasibility of walkable urbanism projects; defining proactive merchandising and leasing strategies to achieve mixed-use, place-destination, market support; creating risk-adjusted financial mechanisms required by ‘new-old’, walkable-urban, mixed-use property types.Some or most of the above ideas might be expected to encounter massive institutional opposition rooted in entrenched 20th Century Western-Educated-Industrialized-Rich-Democratic (WEIRD) ideology referenced in Jon Haidt’s Righteous Mind but also by Naomi Klein’s piece in The Nation– "Capitalism vs. The Climate", or Niall Ferguson’s book Civilization, with closely allied rules of settlement (sprawl, mass-produced materials, etc). In this context one of the most interesting projects I am presently attempting to finance is a newly-gutted downtown block that once contained a long-abandoned YMCA and swimming pool. In that space I envision a service-oriented mix of leaseholds and civic engagement, "anchored" by a new-traditional property type: "The Downtown Art House Multiplex".The Downtown Art House Multiplex has 2, 4, 6 (or more) movie screens, demand-sized auditoriums, and digital projection suited to first-run "specialty films" like Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, The Descendants, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Midnight in Paris, The King’s Speech. The latent issue confronting Hollywood is: Do beat to death a Nineties strategy of regional-megaplex, all-or-nothing fanboy blockbusters with over-priced captive-market concession sales, which is a strategy rooted in Leinberger’s ‘drivable sub-urbia’? Or do we recognize a growing, pent up, tectonic shift to walkable downtowns and mixed-use megastructures frequented by educated boomers, new singles, and other location-free professionals (e.g. the urbane echo-boomer entrepreneur) better served by ‘specialty-flick’ multiplexes mirroring diverse, chaotic, contemporary tastes?I’d be interested to hear any thoughts about this.

John – wonderful to see that you grasp the same issues I do here. The framework I am calling for is there in bits and pieces already, but it hasn’t come together into something that can guide the “operating system” into the needed reforms — exactly as you say! Some work to be done I think… Thanks again! m